Skip to main content

About your Search

20121001
20121009
STATION
CNN 4
CNNW 4
WETA 3
CNBC 2
MSNBC 2
MSNBCW 2
WMPT (PBS) 2
CSPAN 1
CSPAN2 1
FBC 1
KGO (ABC) 1
KNTV (NBC) 1
KPIX (CBS) 1
KQED (PBS) 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 36
Search Results 0 to 35 of about 36 (some duplicates have been removed)
's assume a new set of laws is passed. as quickly as they are passed, election lawyers figure out how to get around them. it is remarkable. it's constantly evolve issue. would i support moving the money back to the candidates. absolutely. i think there has to be a mechanism i worked for two millionaire politicians. i believe there should be a mechanism for rank and file. to be able to raise larger amounts. but i believe putting the money back in the candidate account create more accountability and much more integrity driven process to frame an election. me personally yes. and, you know, does my firm make money off the kinds of campaign. absolutely. from my perspective i think it's better for the country if we went back to that model. >> can i answer? >> i don't know that i agree with the assumption of the question. if you look at what -- [inaudible] look at what super pac actually do and what the advertising does, everyone in here age lot of people in the political times remember the question in political times 101 should the elected representative do what he believes is right or what the co
or fast and furious, but they found more stuff that he's done under the law to maximize profits and minimize taxes. they got him ted dead to rights again. i don't know if any american cares. do you remember how the kennedys made their money? >> i think there was some boot legging. >> might have been a little boot legging. john kerry married and then left his yacht in providence or something, didn't he. and then john edwards flipping his magnetic business card at all the ambulances going by made $80 million. it's weird, isn't it? >> he was a good lawyer. >> and a hell of a human being, too, johnny. we have ten seconds. >> i don't think additional incremental disclosures about offshore investments will make a big deal. >> all right, my friend, thank you. >>> when we come back, we'll get to kevin ferry from the cme, we'll find out what's most likely to drive action on the second day of the quarter. smart comes with 8 airbags, 3 a crash management system and the world's only tridion safety cell which can withstand over three and a half tons. small in size. big on safety. monarch of
about what treatments are given. that's explicitly prohibited in the law. but let's go back to what governor romney indicated that under his plan he would be able to cover people with preexisting conditions. well actually, governor, that isn't what your plan does. what your plan does is to duplicate what's already the law which says if you are out of health insurance for three months than you can end up getting continuous coverage and an insurance company can't deny you if it's been under 90 days. but that's already the law. and that doesn't help the millions of people out there with preexisting conditions there's a why reason governor romney set up the plan that he did in massachusetts. it wasn't a government takeover of health care, it was the largest expansion of private insurance. but what it does say is that insurers, you've got to take everybody. now, that also means that you've got more customers. but when governor romney says he'll replace it with something but can't detail how it will be, in fact, replaced and the reason he set up the system he did in massachusetts was beca
, president obama's done a much better job in enforcing the trade laws than we've ever seen before. he's pushed china. he just won three cases. he won a case on pipe to put thousands of people back to work. he won a case of tires that put people back to work. and he just filed one on auto parts. look, mitt romney's talk is cheap. he'll go back to this -- he's working on currency. we're all working on currency. mitt romney will go back to the same paradigm that we had before. signing agreements that are good for wall street but not good for main street. >> even though this tax increase that we're about to see is going to increase taxes for anybody making more than $250,000. >> which tax increases you talking about? >> the fiscal cliff issue as we see the tax cuts expire at year end. >> well, the president said he wants to continue those tax breaks for people earning less than $250,000. it's the republicans that say no, we won't give anybody anything unless the millionaires and billionaires get their tax cut too. they don't need -- they need to pay their fair share. and we -- >> thanks,
regulatory law that president obama signed in 2010. number three is enough who is winning the debate, and number four, big bird. touched off, of course, by mitt romney's pledge to pull federal subsidies for public television. people also wanted to know about the president's health care overhaul known as obama care. as well as the personal stats. and as for romney, his tax cut proposal got lots of hits, as did his bio, and, yet again, big bird. everyone, of course, is talking about the debate. they're also saying that there was a commanding performance by mitt romney. of course, the highlights, the commentary, and the spin, but we'll replay the entire debate from start to finish. we're not talking about talking points. we are talking about the candidates themselves in their own words. if you missed it, if you like to watch it again, decide to see for yourself. here's the first presidential debate between president barack obama and former massachusetts governor mitt romney. >> good evening from the magnus arena at the university of denver in denver, colorado. i welcome you to the first
that was not advancing the cause. that is how we signed a free- trade agreements into law. that is how we repealed don't ask don't tell.l that is how we ended the war in iraq, and that is how we will wind down the war in afghanistan. we have seen progress even under republican control of the house of representatives. part of being principled and part of being a leader is being able to describe exactly what it is you intend to do, not just saying "i'll sit down." occasionally you have to say no to people both in your own party and in the other party. yes, have we had some fights between me and the republicans when they fought against us reining in the excess against wall street? absolutely. that was a fight that needed to be had. about whether americans had more security with their health insurance, that was a fight we needed to have. part of leadership and governing is both saying what it is you are for and also being able to say no to some things. when it comes to his own party in the course of this campaign, he has not displayed the willingness to say no to some of the more extreme parts of his part
Search Results 0 to 35 of about 36 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)